Two councillors spent less than an hour at the first full council meeting of the year, two months after they were ejected from their party.
Councillors Bharti Gajjar and Chandni Mistry arrived at Hove Town Hall at 4.15pm today (Thursday 1 February) in time for the 4.30pm start of the meeting, chaired by the deputy mayor Councillor Mohammed Assaduzzaman.
The pair were seated separately from their former Labour colleagues, in front of independent councillor Peter Atkinson and Brighton and Hove Independents councillors Mark Earthey and Bridget Fishleigh.
Councillor Gajjar left at 5.14pm and Councillor Mistry left at 5.20pm as her Queen’s Park ward colleague Tristram Burden responded to a public deputation about support for vulnerable people in temporary housing outside Brighton and Hove. This was before the main business of the meeting had started.
Before the meeting began the mother and daughter duo were secluded in a separate room guarded by town hall security staff.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service has asked the two councillors why they left the meeting after less than an hour.
Both councillors were expelled by Labour last month after an investigation into where they live and claims of election malpractice. They said that they lived in Brighton and Hove on their nomination forms.
It is understood that Bharti Gajjar had a genuine Brighton residence where local councillors have visited her but the veracity of Councillor Mistry’s given address was unclear.
Both councillors have links to Leicester. Councillor Mistry told the Leicester Mercury that she was from there in a 2020 interview.
Councillor Gajjar owns a house there and uses other Leicester addresses for three companies of which she is a director.
The Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, passed a dossier of evidence to Sussex Police and an investigation is understood to be taking place.
Councillor Atkinson said that he found the situation “baffling” when Councillors Gajjar and Mistry left after less than an hour while Councillor Fishleigh quipped: “I guess they had to get the train back to Leicester.”
The Labour group said: “On behalf of the residents of Kemptown and Queen’s Park, we are appalled that two of their elected representatives are behaving so badly.
“Independent councillors Chandni Mistry and Bharti Gajjar have not attended any council meetings for months.
“They turned up to full council today but left in the middle of questions from the public, less than an hour into this important public meeting.
“This not only lets down the people that voted for them and the communities they serve but the council as an organisation and all elected members who enter public service for the right reasons.
“Despite this, they continue to claim their financial member allowance despite failing to fulfil their public duties.
“We reiterate our calls for councillors Mistry and Gajjar to stand down immediately so that by-elections can take place and the communities in Queen’s Park and Kemptown can be properly represented by new councillors.”
Opposition leader Steve Davis said: “Given the range of important issues being debated this evening and with the implications of huge Labour cuts now becoming apparent, it is hugely regrettable to see any councillors leave full council early unless they have been called away by an unavoidable emergency which, as a fellow councillor, I hope has not been the case this evening.
“For two councillors to leave within the first hour of full council, during an item discussing vulnerable adults, and before most councillors have had the chance to fully debate the important issues included on the agenda, is incredibly disappointing.
“It must leave residents – many of whom are concerned about funding cuts to vital services and some who have given up their own evenings to come to the town hall and ask questions on important subjects like nursery closures and council inaction in tackling air quality – wondering just how committed some councillors are to representing the interests of their residents and whether in the week Labour announced tens of millions of pounds in cuts, councillors claiming allowances should be showing far more commitment to the city and its people.”
Councillors must attend at least one meeting every six months. If they fail to do this, their seat is automatically vacated.
By attending the meeting today, Councillors Gajjar and Mistry – the first to sign the register as well as the first to leave – can claim their allowances until the start of August.
I just KNEW they would do this! I’m so angry at them. This six month loophole needs closing up, they aren’t the first to abuse this.
That would require legislation and the government isn’t interested in changing it. Cynically it helps them delay council by-elections by encouraging their councillors just not to attend meetings rather than resign because it delays them by 6 months.
They won’t even change the law on recall elections despite the changes requested would save public money and get a quicker result.
Nor will they allow a wider range of ID to be used at polling stations.
But they more than willing to change the strategy the Electoral Commission has to follow and increase how much political parties can spend on election campaigns – almost doubling the current limits.
But there are valid reasons for having such a period but perhaps 6 months is too long. But whatever the period is these two and others would just do what they’ve done today and pop up at a meeting.
I’ve been looking into it from a legalistic perspective, and my understanding is that the Localism Act 2011 only obligates the Council to have a Code of Conduct, however, it is down to the local authority to dictate what those outcomes can be as part of best practice. I can’t see a prohibitive statement regarding the removal of a Ward Councillor as an outcome of a complaint (as opposed to disqualification, to which that is quite specific).
A simple amendment of removing paragraph 11.3 from their “Procedure for Dealing with Allegations of Breaches of the Code of Conduct by Elected and Co-opted Members”, and adding in the option to remove a Ward Councillor who has breached the Code of Conduct into 11.5 would close that hole up pretty well, in my opinion.
I think it would require an actual positive clause in the Act for a council to have the power to expel one of its members.
Councils can only act on the powers given to them. An absence of a prohibition isn’t the same as being given a power to do something.
I would be reluctant to give a council / councillors the power to expel a member because it could so easily be abused for political purposes.
I was reading your reasoning for your reluctance in another comment. You make a very good point about it being open to abuse potentially.
Sigh, I guess part of me is just upset that something so obviously morally wrong is able to happen with little recourse currently.
Indeed and I agree with you but it’s hard to craft any sort of scheme that doesn’t also damage well behaved councillors who may have issues attending council meetings because of serious illness or because of work commitments yet are still doing case work via phone, email and zoom etc.
The six month non attendance rule was designed to cover that.The thinking being 6 months would be a long enough period to permit recovery from a serious illness and to allow time for the councillor to properly consider their position on whether to remain in office and having to attend at least one meeting or resign and cause a by-election.
Utterly disgusting do these two have no shame? The biggest grifters in Brighton and Hove
Or allegedly not in Brighton and Hove
Labour chose them, Labour vetted them, Labour supported them, Labour promoted them and Labour celebrated with them. Take responsibility for this mess, it’s not going to go away.
What do you want them to do?
As elected officials they can’t be sacked from being councillors by either the Labour Group (which did expel them from the group) or the Council as a corporate body.
They aren’t employees so can’t be sacked or disciplined or put on a performance plan by HR.
They can only be removed for not attending a meeting in a six month period (and the clock reset on that yesterday) or by the courts for some illegal activity that is disqualified.
This isn’t me defending them but the law of the land.
Perhaps MP Lloyd Russell Moyle could give us the crime number so we could bring about a private prosecution for these two if the Police are doing nothing.
Why don’t you send him an email and ask him?
But he’d just tell you it’s in the hands of the police to investigate and then the CPS to assess the evidence and then decide to prosecute and then a court.
If he’s actually reported it, there will be a crime number and he will be pleased to put it in the public domain.
Most information would likely be kept secret to not contaminate the investigation until a determination is rendered. At the very least, there will be an outcome from the Monitoring Officer.
Two grifters…
Thanks to the Labour Party. They gave us these two shameless fraudsters. I wonder if anyone in the national party will be taking responsibility for their part in this travesty of democracy…guessing not.
Pretty sure they got shafted, just like the rest of us. The thing is, you have to wonder who put them up to this?
They probably needed to leave earlier for the long drive home.
If they refuse to be held accountable the pay should be automatically cancelled, regardless of who planted them in there to steal a non earned wage, Labour and the Unions should held responsible for this mess, from the top and this area is not the only council who have to suffer “Party Policies” of outsider transplants.
Councillors don’t get a salary.
They aren’t employees so can’t be fired by some manager from HR.
The most a political group can do is withdraw the group whip (which all parties have done at one time or another)
They get an allowance which isn’t paid based on attendance at meetings or doing case work but because they were elected to the office.
I wonder if imposters suffer from imposter syndrome.
Impostor Syndrome is a term used in a psychological context to describe feelings of inadequacy despite genuine achievements, and it may not directly apply to someone deliberately pretending to be someone they are not.
Shame on these two ! To not do any work and then just turn up for an hour and then take there councillor allowance! Other councillors work so hard for their residents and for the city and then these two just wander in , stick their fingers up at the city and then wander off again. Shame on them !
It makes you wonder what checks are made when they submit their nominations
They have already suspended them. And they are being investigated. What else can they do? Get real
They haven’t been suspended.
I think Theresa means they have been suspended from the Labour Group which is all Labour can do.
Same as if an MP loses the Whip they are still MPs but aren’t members of a particular political group.
We need to know who exactly – name names – nominated this sorry and unsuitable ( on every level including geographically) pair to be Labour candidates for B and H council.
Carpetbaggers
Is there no legislation for public vote of no confidence to get rid?
No.
Be careful what you wish for.
In the US recall legislation is often used as political revenge and not because of any sort of malfeasance by an office holder.
Just look at the fairly recent effort to recall the Governor of California. He hadn’t done anything illegal but republicans started a recall petition and gathered the requisite signatures simply because they disagreed with some of his Covid decisions. The recall election cost $250m just to administer. He Governor won.
I question the level of democracy operating within B & H Labour Party when they are unable to choose their own council candidates but have them foisted onto the city by a regional group that offers no representative rights to the citizens of our city. Because of the actions of this secretive group the city is now stuck with two councillors, one in Kemptown and one in Queen’s Park, who are not representing their community. Is this how the Labour Party defines representative democracy? This whole mess originated within the Labour Party, and they are the ones who own it. How can we be sure that the decisions taken in the city chamber are not influenced by this secretive regional group? It looks as though Labour under Keir Starmer are just as prone to controlling centralisation as the Tories and the people of Brighton & Hove are the ones being made to suffer because of it.
There should be a mechanism to hold a recall petition for local councillors like with MPs so that we can get rid of councillors in exceptional circumstances such as this.
I hope Bharti Gajjar and Chandni Mistry are not claiming councillors’ allowances……. Maybe a FOI is needed.
They are.
They surely do need the money, though I doubt it’s enough. A legal case in another country, maintaining houses in 2 cities, the travel from Brighton to Leicester to Lancaster/ Imperial (wherever Chandni studies)… 2000GBP for both of them combined can’t be enough to cover that. Bharti’s companies also don’t show that much money and then they both are med students and studying…. Someone really needs to look into their finances
New nee Labour is to blame for this mess. Their obsession with blocking any genuine local candidates in favour of imposed Starmeroid drones meant these two were imposed on the City. This is a consequence of a hard right authoritarian Labour leadership.
The case for independent councillors grows. I hope that the people who voted labour out of laziness remember this at the next ballot.
Hmm, fillibusting has happened with independent councillors before though, so I don’t think your argument holds water.
Being an independent does not prevent them from behaving badly either, not attending meetings and not doing case work. Of course there are lots of hardworking independents just as there are had working councillors who are members of political parties.
And some people who stand as independents you really don’t want as councillors because they can’t comprehend either the role or the responsibilities.
In 2019 I was canvassed by the independent candidate in the ward where I lived. They were only interested in car parking. I asked them about social care and infrastructure and council tax and they had no clue. All they wanted to do was “sort out the parking”.
The only dodgy independent councillors tend to be the disgraced ones kicked out of mainstream parties but refusing to leave the council. Genuine independents finance their own campaigns and get elected by sheer determination usually motivated by a genuine desire to do the job well. Party candidates are dropped in wherever and for various reasons and consequently have a tendency to let us all down!
A good moral of do your homework about the individual, rather than the party. At councillor-level, I think that is much more important.
To all those who express dismay:
Who is culpable?
a) The Labour party.
b) The councillors themselves.
c) Those who voted for them.
You may place a tick against none, any or all of the above.
For me, it’s the councillors themselves. They seem to be running on a phantasmagoria of deceitfulness.
My question is why are they doing this, and who is putting them up to it? These aren’t the actions of an individual, it’s way too shortsighted.
The coucil pay their travel allowance on the [ Gravy Train ] back and forth between Leicester where they live plus attendance and subsistence allowances Shame on the Labour party and I ask why were they provided security in a seperate room whilst in the Town Hall ?
No, they can’t claim a travel allowance
Perhaps read up on the allowances scheme. It’s available on the councils website.
There is no separate travel or subsistence allowances.
Have they no shame?
The Labour group (unnamed spokesperson) state Councillors Gajjar and Mistry are ” failing to fulfil their public duties” : is that a crime? Is that just an opinion by a sanctimonious hypocrite who has just been short-changed and shafted ?
If they are found to have been elected on a false premises, yes, that would be a crime.
There are precedents elseewhere of councillors who fail to fulfil their duties or obligations on behalf of the people that they purport to represent, while cheerfully collecting their remuneration. Many also hold down full-time or part-time jobs, which they allow to take priority over the work for which they were elected. Thankfully, however, the majority do fulfil their resonsibilities effectively.
According to The Argus Cllr Mistry said it “was a tough decision” to leave early and that “she doesn’t recall having done so before”.
That is some primary-school level doublespeak. Easily seen through. She also told The Argus she would still work hard to represent the ward. Her actions scream to the contrary.
Foolish naïve girl. She has ruined her whole career, and not just in politics beyond this. This will haunt her like a bad rash. Dishonesty and making it worse by not resigning in response is a bad decision.
I honestly think she was persuaded into this by someone with a vested interesting in attempting to destabilise the council. She is stupid to think she wins at the end of this.
How did Labour end up selecting these two people, apparently not bothering to find out even the most basic facts about them, before plastering their faces over thousands of lying leaflets, which promised voters that Labour would fix every problem under the sun! That’s the real story here. I know a lot of disappointed people who will not be voting Labour again.
A lot of Labour people are asking the same thing.
VOTE REFORM